Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can you name this Mets player?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Strawman View Post
    Two things:

    1. How is it not on Wright that he focuses entirely on trying to hit the ball out of Citi Field? That's the only excuse that fairly uses the size of the park - DW's trying to hit homers and can't. "The park got in his head." It should not change singles, doubles, triples, walks, strikeouts etc. Or quite frankly, road performance. Yet all the numbers have decreased. Why? You claim it's the dimensions of the home ballpark - a park that (as I've posted in other threads) is statistically not the worst in the NL or MLB - it's a pitcher's park but at the top of the bottom third. It doesn't add up.

    2. How is an opinion an "agenda?" I don't call your insistence on white-washing Alderson's performance by blaming the owners exclusively as an "agenda" - it's just your opinion. Agenda seems to indicate something semi-hidden. I'm pretty up front here about what I think...I think?
    Strawman - I have said it a thousand times about a hitters approach so much so that it doesn't bear repeating, but that really is an answer to part 1.

    Part 2 - Fair enough. I hear ya.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Ok so now I heard what I need to know. Good - at least I know where you are on it.

    You think a weak minded player changes his approach based upon ball park conditions? That is actually pretty amazing that anyone would have that opinion. So now David Wright is going to hit a ton of triples? Hit it where its pitched........exactly. He was able to do that with success. Now its a long out... You make enough long outs the player naturally will look for another way to succeed. Therefore changing his approach. If you cant understand that then maybe you should start preparing for your fantasy football draft.

    The worst part of the equation here is that this disgusting excuse for a park was built after the Mets had a power hitting lineup....just goes to show how out of touch ownership is with its own team.

    As far as "agendas" are concerned for almost 5 years you have had an anti Alderson/Wright agenda and a Pro Reyes agenda..........now your complaining about someone mentioning it when your posts are always slanted that way...........including the post I just responded to.
    Two things:

    1. How is it not on Wright that he focuses entirely on trying to hit the ball out of Citi Field? That's the only excuse that fairly uses the size of the park - DW's trying to hit homers and can't. "The park got in his head." It should not change singles, doubles, triples, walks, strikeouts etc. Or quite frankly, road performance. Yet all the numbers have decreased. Why? You claim it's the dimensions of the home ballpark - a park that (as I've posted in other threads) is statistically not the worst in the NL or MLB - it's a pitcher's park but at the top of the bottom third. It doesn't add up.

    2. How is an opinion an "agenda?" I don't call your insistence on white-washing Alderson's performance by blaming the owners exclusively as an "agenda" - it's just your opinion. Agenda seems to indicate something semi-hidden. I'm pretty up front here about what I think...I think?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
    Um, check out Mel Ott's home and away batting splits and see if you might reconsider the whole weak mind notion.

    I would think that only the most stubborn of souls would, when circumstances (ballpark) changed and the results of the previous way you did things were much worse, refuse to change their approach. One might say that is how a simpleton would do it or biologically, an extinct species.
    Exactly. The thing that is so bizarre about Wright's situation is that he just didn't come into this park as a rookie. They actually changed it on him mid career. They went from a pitchers park to a monstrosity of a pitchers park.

    The only other team I can think of that did something like that was the Tigers. They went from the old hitter friendly stadium to more of a pitchers park. I am not sure who was on the roster who may have had the same effect.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    Um, check out Mel Ott's home and away batting splits and see if you might reconsider the whole weak mind notion.

    I would think that only the most stubborn of souls would, when circumstances (ballpark) changed and the results of the previous way you did things were much worse, refuse to change their approach. One might say that is how a simpleton would do it or biologically, an extinct species.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Strawman View Post
    Only a weak baseball mind would try to "change his approach" to a freaking ballpark - I hope that's not the case with Wright, I like to think it's the beaning myself. You hit the ball where it's pitched, and you try to get a pitch you can hit hard. If David Wright is trying to hit homeruns in Citi Field he's a much more limited baseball player than we all thought - and certainly shouldn't be "captain" or "face of the franchise" - because it's pathetic. There are tons of doubles and triples and base hits in Citi Field - and perhaps 4-5 fewer HRs per year - for David Wright to find.

    If he "changed his approach" it's entirely on him.

    Also if I may, this constant harping on "agendas" is tiresome. It's just a dismissive way of describing someone's point of view or world view. We have all have views - we all have "agendas." It's too loaded a term for these discussions, I think.
    Ok so now I heard what I need to know. Good - at least I know where you are on it.

    You think a weak minded player changes his approach based upon ball park conditions? That is actually pretty amazing that anyone would have that opinion. So now David Wright is going to hit a ton of triples? Hit it where its pitched........exactly. He was able to do that with success. Now its a long out... You make enough long outs the player naturally will look for another way to succeed. Therefore changing his approach. If you cant understand that then maybe you should start preparing for your fantasy football draft.

    The worst part of the equation here is that this disgusting excuse for a park was built after the Mets had a power hitting lineup....just goes to show how out of touch ownership is with its own team.

    As far as "agendas" are concerned for almost 5 years you have had an anti Alderson/Wright agenda and a Pro Reyes agenda..........now your complaining about someone mentioning it when your posts are always slanted that way...........including the post I just responded to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Strawman this post really makes it looks like you don't understand somethings about baseball, and I know that is not true. Your choosing to take this route for some anti Alderson, pro Reyes reason.

    This is not a video game- David Wright is not a computer program that gets run by PS3. The thing that you seemingly don't understand is that when you play in park that plays 180 degrees from your strength the player is forced to do what? Well the park isn't going to change so the player has to change what has made him a success. David Wright had to change his WHOLE approach when what made him successful for 5 years now is his weakness. So YES when you change your approach and try to become another player ALL of your numbers will suffer.

    David Wright was well on his way to a HOF career, but he was forced to "muscle up" to produce, and become a player he wasn't. So the K's go up the average's go down.

    Anybody that's ever held a bat in their hands can easily see this. Its basically a no brainer to pick up on this. Any "fan" that doesn't see it or doesn't understand it when its explained is either just turning a deaf ear, or has an agenda.
    Only a weak baseball mind would try to "change his approach" to a freaking ballpark - I hope that's not the case with Wright, I like to think it's the beaning myself. You hit the ball where it's pitched, and you try to get a pitch you can hit hard. If David Wright is trying to hit homeruns in Citi Field he's a much more limited baseball player than we all thought - and certainly shouldn't be "captain" or "face of the franchise" - because it's pathetic. There are tons of doubles and triples and base hits in Citi Field - and perhaps 4-5 fewer HRs per year - for David Wright to find.

    If he "changed his approach" it's entirely on him.

    Also if I may, this constant harping on "agendas" is tiresome. It's just a dismissive way of describing someone's point of view or world view. We have all have views - we all have "agendas." It's too loaded a term for these discussions, I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    Not to sidetrack. but it seemed to me that the park was designed to take advantage of Reyes' triples hitting prowess. When it first opened it seemed like he had 10 in the first six weeks. Any ball into the gap (chasm) in RCF was a chance to watch him fly around the bases.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Strawman View Post
    Nope it's not the park. It may be the talk of the "the park" got inside DW's head - but that's on him, his weakness, his fault. A slight drop-off in HR would be the park - a drop in all other numbers? No.
    Strawman this post really makes it looks like you don't understand somethings about baseball, and I know that is not true. Your choosing to take this route for some anti Alderson, pro Reyes reason.

    This is not a video game- David Wright is not a computer program that gets run by PS3. The thing that you seemingly don't understand is that when you play in park that plays 180 degrees from your strength the player is forced to do what? Well the park isn't going to change so the player has to change what has made him a success. David Wright had to change his WHOLE approach when what made him successful for 5 years now is his weakness. So YES when you change your approach and try to become another player ALL of your numbers will suffer.

    David Wright was well on his way to a HOF career, but he was forced to "muscle up" to produce, and become a player he wasn't. So the K's go up the average's go down.

    Anybody that's ever held a bat in their hands can easily see this. Its basically a no brainer to pick up on this. Any "fan" that doesn't see it or doesn't understand it when its explained is either just turning a deaf ear, or has an agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    The two biggest differences are HR 130 down to 94 and K up 499 to 638. I guess to be fair, triples did go up from 10 to 15, which if you wanted to futz with the numbers could rave about being a 50% increase.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Its David Wright....My point was not many players have a wasted peak when their development years were as excellent as Wrights.

    The bigger part of my point was that Citi Field has taken away what would have been a Met everyday player to go into the HOF. Might I add the first everyday player to be a HOF'er.
    Nope it's not the park. It may be the talk of the "the park" got inside DW's head - but that's on him, his weakness, his fault. A slight drop-off in HR would be the park - a drop in all other numbers? No.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    I think if he hit in front of Cano or Stanton we would be in awe. Of course we would be in awe if we had Cano or Stanton on this team.
    Nah he is not the same player

    Leave a comment:


  • LI METS FAN
    replied
    I think if he hit in front of Cano or Stanton we would be in awe. Of course we would be in awe if we had Cano or Stanton on this team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    The answer IMO only is no one. I believe you think the answer is Wright, who could and has played on bad teams.
    So you think Wright actually declined during his peak years due to bad teams?

    Leave a comment:


  • LI METS FAN
    replied
    The answer IMO only is no one. I believe you think the answer is Wright, who could and has played on bad teams.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post
    Trick question- the answer is no one.

    But I guess you are saying that he is in decline. Is it because he is in decline or because he has played on really bad teams in the last 5 years?
    Well geez I don't know...according to you I am talking about no one...so how could no one play on bad teams?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X